James Braddock: Under-Rated

Thunder and Lightning · Post by **Thunder and Lightning** » 11 Sep 2006, 15:34

The Great John L wrote:
silkov wrote:
Ambling Alp wrote:It's true that heavyweights are over represented in the Hall of Fame. Braddock isn't deserving. However, despite all the negatives concerning Walcott, he did do enough to deserve to be in the Hall of Fame. He was certainly better than Braddock,Johansson, Burns and Willard. You could also argue that he was more deserving than Corbett, Fitzsimmons, Baer, Schmeling, Sharkey, Patterson, Norton and possibly a few others as well.
I must have missed Walcott winning world titles in 3 divisions if he is better than Fitz!....
I’m not sure if better is even relevant when it comes to HOF membership. Obviously, since boxers in the HOF fought during many different eras, no one really knows who is “better”, so I think someone is voted into the HOF more because of accomplishments and historical significance. Based on that criteria, I think Fitz is clearly more deserving than Walcott. I think Corbett as more deserving as well.

However, if all Alp wants to argue is who was a better fighter, then yes, it’s open for discussion.

Very good point also this may sound stupid but it is called the hall of "fame" couldn't that mean you get in to the hall if you are famous wich could explain why there are so many HW in the hall.

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 11 Sep 2006, 15:36

Thunder and Lightning wrote:
The Great John L wrote:
silkov wrote: I must have missed Walcott winning world titles in 3 divisions if he is better than Fitz!....
I’m not sure if better is even relevant when it comes to HOF membership. Obviously, since boxers in the HOF fought during many different eras, no one really knows who is “better”, so I think someone is voted into the HOF more because of accomplishments and historical significance. Based on that criteria, I think Fitz is clearly more deserving than Walcott. I think Corbett as more deserving as well.

However, if all Alp wants to argue is who was a better fighter, then yes, it’s open for discussion.
Very good point also this may sound stupid but it is called the hall of "fame" couldn't that mean you get in to the hall if you are famous wich could explain why there are so many HW in the hall.

Yep, it sure could.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 11 Sep 2006, 17:21

evndrbsn wrote:
Ambling Alp wrote:It's true that heavyweights are over represented in the Hall of Fame. Braddock isn't deserving. However, despite all the negatives concerning Walcott, he did do enough to deserve to be in the Hall of Fame. He was certainly better than Braddock,Johansson, Burns and Willard. You could also argue that he was more deserving than Corbett, Fitzsimmons, Baer, Schmeling, Sharkey, Patterson, Norton and possibly a few others as well.
There's no way Walcott was more deserving the Floyd Patterson. Absolutely no way.

ahh yes way. walcott beat better heavyweight opposition than patterson too and matches up better vs the rest of the field head to head.

walcott at his best is leagues and leagues above braddock. walcott beat far better opposition than braddock. walcott proved himself a great fighter, braddock did not. walcott cleaned out the entire heavweight contenders 1945-47 pre title beating 8 top 10 ranked contenders. braddock never did this. walcott beat 5 hall of famers, braddock beat 2. walcotts preformances vs louis I and marciano I vs two top 10 heavyweights of all time are better preformances than anything braddock had. walcott defended his title vs # 1 contender succesfully, braddock didnt defend his title for 2 years. walcotts title win over charles is more impressive than braddocks over baers. walcott was a top contender much longer than braddock was. walcotts win resume is LEAGUES ABOVE braddocks. walcott beat A LOT MORE heavyweight contenders than braddock beat.

lastly, walcott looks much better on film than braddock does

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 11 Sep 2006, 17:25

evndrbsn wrote:
Ambling Alp wrote:
evndrbsn wrote: There's no way Walcott was more deserving the Floyd Patterson. Absolutely no way.
Walcott seems to me to be about even with Patterson. Do you think Patterson was a lot better? If so, why?
Patterson was 8-5 in title fights, with one of the losses being a robbery against Jimmy Ellis. Walcott was 2-6 in title fights, with one loss against Louis being a robbery and one decision win over Ezzard Charles being pretty controversial. Patterson was much more consistent at a high level while Walcott constantly fell short. As Brockton would say (although not about Walcott), Jersey Joe WOULDA COULDA SHOULDA!

walcott may have been 2-6 in title fights......but look who walcott fought!!!! all of walcotts losses came against ATG heavyweights louis, marciano, charles

patterson may have been 8-5 but those 8 wins are filled with wins over many C level fighters. when patterson faced ATG heavweights liston, ali, he is 0-3 in world title fights.

as u see its not fair to compare because if u switch walcott and patterson, walcott would do much better against pattersons opponents than patterson would do vs walcotts opponents.

walcotts heavyweight run 1945-47 where he cleaned out the division is much more impressive than patterson title reign

walcott defintley beat better opposition than floyd

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 11 Sep 2006, 22:16

Brocton makes a good point here. If Patterson had two fights against Louis, 2 against Marciano, and 4 against Charles, it's doubtful his record would have been better than Walcott's 2-6. He would have been knocked out twice by Louis and Marciano and splitting 4 fights with Charles seems about right.

If Walcott fought the same 13 title fights as Patterson,, what would his record have been?
Well, Patterson's 8 wins were against Moore, Jackson, Radamacher,Harris, London, Johansson twice, and McNeeley.
Walcott would have been the favorite against all of these guys.
Patterson lost to Liston twice and Ali once it title fights, which Walcott would have lost to as well. However Patterson also lost to Johansson and Ellis. Walcott probably would have beaten those guys.
There is a serious chance that Walcott would have gone 10-3 against the guys that Patterson went 8-5 against in title fights. It's almost certain that Walcott would have at least matched Patterson's 8-5 mark.

I don't buy the arguement that because fighters such as Schmeling, Sharkey, Corbett, Fitzsimmons were clear #1's automatically makes them better than Walcott. The #2 fighter ( and sometimes the #3 #4 etc.)in some eras are better than the #1 guy in other eras.

A lot depends on how much you factor in Walcott's early career. If you give him the benefit of the doubt and don't that part of his career heavily, than he should be considered roughly even to the others guys that were mentioned.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 12 Sep 2006, 02:00

Decagon wrote:
Ambling Alp wrote:If Walcott fought the same 13 title fights as Patterson,, what would his record have been?
Well, Patterson's 8 wins were against Moore, Jackson, Radamacher,Harris, London, Johansson twice, and McNeeley.
Walcott would have been the favorite against all of these guys.
Walcott did tend to lose fights, though. In his last 19 bouts, he only had 10 wins. If he can lose to Rex Layne and Joey Maxim, he can lose to Archie Moore or Ingemar Johannson.

in the big title fights.......walcott always brought his A game.

* maxim loss was a bad decision. it was reported as a "very unpopular decision" by the new york times.

a peak walcott beats both moore and johannsen.

evndrbsn · Post by **evndrbsn** » 12 Sep 2006, 03:20

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:
Decagon wrote:
Ambling Alp wrote:If Walcott fought the same 13 title fights as Patterson,, what would his record have been?
Well, Patterson's 8 wins were against Moore, Jackson, Radamacher,Harris, London, Johansson twice, and McNeeley.
Walcott would have been the favorite against all of these guys.
Walcott did tend to lose fights, though. In his last 19 bouts, he only had 10 wins. If he can lose to Rex Layne and Joey Maxim, he can lose to Archie Moore or Ingemar Johannson.
in the big title fights.......walcott always brought his A game.

* maxim loss was a bad decision. it was reported as a "very unpopular decision" by the new york times.

a peak walcott beats both moore and johannsen.

So was Walcott-Charles IV.

barry · Post by **barry** » 12 Sep 2006, 06:56

>>>I think you misunderstood me. I was saying that you could argue that Walcott (not Braddock) was more deserving than Fitzsimmons.<<<

How can it be argued? Based on what? Fitz not only won titles in three divisions, but he consistenly beat and competed very well against big heavyweights while he was never really nothing more than a big middleweight! Fitz is one of the fighters that there is no question as to him being worthy for the HOF...in fact he is in the small group of very worthy fighters such as Harry Greb, Henry Armstrong, Joe Louis and Ray Robinson!

Cojimar 1945 · Post by **Cojimar 1945** » 12 Sep 2006, 12:22

Guys are rated based on what they do in their eras. If a guy is number 1 in his era he ranks over someone from another era who was not number 1. I think its fairly simple. If someone cannot dominate their own era they rank below those who do dominate.

Cojimar 1945 · Post by **Cojimar 1945** » 12 Sep 2006, 12:26

I believe I have read a Walcott interview from 1956 in which he claims Patterson is better than he is and also better than Marciano.

Seamus · Post by **Seamus** » 12 Sep 2006, 12:43

What fighters say in interviews about who was better, or worse, means absolutely nothing. Walcott could just as easily have said "I'd destroy Patterson, and Marciano if I was a few yrs younger". Wouldn't mean anything though. Only way to rate fighters is on what they actually did in the ring.

HomicideHenry · Post by **HomicideHenry** » 12 Sep 2006, 14:43

Braddock faced against 5 HOF fighters: Louis, Lewis, Rosenbloom, Loughran and Max Baer. He never did beat Rosenbloom or Loughran, but bested Lewis, dropped Louis and beaten Baer.

I rank Braddock in the same class as maybe...Burns, Hart, Carnera, Baer, Douglas. Guys who were good fighters, but never became greats, but could have been.

He's over-rated because he did something that was all but miraculous, it was a human interest story. He is under-rated because that's what people want to tune in on, and not what other accomplishments he did.

barry · Post by **barry** » 12 Sep 2006, 15:06

>>>Braddock faced against 5 HOF fighters: Louis, Lewis, Rosenbloom, Loughran and Max Baer. He never did beat Rosenbloom or Loughran, but bested Lewis, dropped Louis and beaten Baer.<<<

You mention that Braddock beat Lewis, but you failed to mention that Lewis also beat Braddock. Loughran boxed his ears off as did Rosenbloom. But it's all the other losses that show him to be a good fighter, nothing great. Starting in 1928, Braddock went 24-24-3 (10) until he retired. Now he lost to a who's who of light heavyweights and managed to score an upset every once in a while. It was a shock when he stopped Tuffy Griffith and then beat Art Lasky before taking Baer. Nah...Braddock was certainly the Cinderella Man, but under-rated he wasn't, if anything he is over-rated due to the movie.

If Tommy Burns would have stayed at and fought at middleweight and, or light heavyweight his entire career then he would be in a lot of debates of best fighters ever at 160 and 175. Burns is on the same page of fighter as Sam Langford...not quite as great as Langford, but right up there. A bout between Langford and Burns would have been a barn-burner. Burns matches up very well to any middle and light heavyweight who ever fought! He would have taken apart Billy Papke, Ketchel, Klaus, or any other middleweight and very few light heavyweights could have hung with him...Philly Jack O'Brien certainly couldn't and he was pretty much considered the class at 175 in that era. Aside from a couple of colored fighters...namely Jeff Clark and of course Langford, Burns was pretty much in a class all his own!

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 12 Sep 2006, 15:10

IrishRufusMurphy wrote:Braddock faced against 5 HOF fighters: Louis, Lewis, Rosenbloom, Loughran and Max Baer. He never did beat Rosenbloom or Loughran, but bested Lewis, dropped Louis and beaten Baer.

I rank Braddock in the same class as maybe...Burns, Hart, Carnera, Baer, Douglas. Guys who were good fighters, but never became greats, but could have been.

He's over-rated because he did something that was all but miraculous, it was a human interest story. He is under-rated because that's what people want to tune in on, and not what other accomplishments he did.

This sounds like a fair assessment. One shouldn't overrate the years when Braddock detriorated into a clubfighter due to poor management and permanent injuries. At his best though Braddock was competitive with the very best at both light-heayvweight and heavyweight, with the exception of once-in-a-liftetime boxer Joe Louis.

In my book the three best heavyweights of the 1930s were Louis, Schmeling, and Sharkey. Braddock isn't in their league, but he comes relatively soon thereafter.

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 12 Sep 2006, 22:55

Cojimar 1945 wrote:Guys are rated based on what they do in their eras. If a guy is number 1 in his era he ranks over someone from another era who was not number 1. I think its fairly simple. If someone cannot dominate their own era they rank below those who do dominate.

No it's not that simple. The best fighter in one era isn't automatically better than the #2 guy in another era. Some eras are much better than others. Is the # 1 heavyweight right now better than the #2 heavyweight in 1974?

barry · Post by **barry** » 13 Sep 2006, 05:14

Well I could understand maybe behind Fitz, as Fitz is in a whole another class compared to Tarver!

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 13 Sep 2006, 10:20

Decagon wrote:At 41, Fitzsimmons was no better than Tarver.

How do you know that?... at 41 Fitz beat Gardner for the 175 title over 20 rounds.... at 37 Tarver can hardly go 12 rounds!! and 12 slow rounds at that!.... I'd got for a 45 yearold Fitz over Tarver....

Cojimar 1945 · Post by **Cojimar 1945** » 13 Sep 2006, 20:45

Rating eras is entirely subjective and anyway advancements are always occuring in sports so a head to head comparison between athletes of different eras seems rather unfair. I woulden't argue that none of the athletes from the 70s and earlier rate highly simply because they did not perform at the level of modern athletes.

However determining who the best fighters of an era are and to what degree they dominate dtheir competition seems less subjective.

barry · Post by **barry** » 14 Sep 2006, 04:26

>>>Fitzsimmons's upright, English stance simply wouldn't work against a modern boxer.<<<

Well for starters it would take a fighter that could actually use the "modern" style...Tarver couldn't. Hell, all the old fighters would have to do is last twelve rounds, which they most certainly could do and then take over the fight as the "modern" fighters of the past 20 years are lucky to go ten rounds, much less twelve...twenty-five, or thiurty rounds...forget about it...Fitzsimmons, if he did not knock out Tarver early, he most certainly would knock Tarver out between 12 and 20!

Hell, as far as that goes... Winky Wright's style is way more "old school" than it is modern...and we have all seen what he can do to the best of the modern fighters...it would be no different for fighters like Fitzsimmons, Corbett, McCoy, etc.!

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 14 Sep 2006, 06:17

Decagon wrote:Fitzsimmons's upright, English stance simply wouldn't work against a modern boxer.

Wow, you really do come out with some old cobblers sometimes, for your information the old 'upright English stance' form of boxing, when done right is very hard to beat... Tarver would be putty in Fitz hands... aside from his skill Bob hit like a mule and Tarver doesnt like to get hit at the best of times...

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 14 Sep 2006, 10:36

silkov wrote:
Decagon wrote:Fitzsimmons's upright, English stance simply wouldn't work against a modern boxer.
Wow, you really do come out with some old cobblers sometimes, for your information the old 'upright English stance' form of boxing, when done right is very hard to beat... Tarver would be putty in Fitz hands... aside from his skill Bob hit like a mule and Tarver doesnt like to get hit at the best of times...

Vitali's style resembled the "upright English stance", and he was damn hard to beat....

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 14 Sep 2006, 10:41

pundit wrote:
silkov wrote:
Decagon wrote:Fitzsimmons's upright, English stance simply wouldn't work against a modern boxer.
Wow, you really do come out with some old cobblers sometimes, for your information the old 'upright English stance' form of boxing, when done right is very hard to beat... Tarver would be putty in Fitz hands... aside from his skill Bob hit like a mule and Tarver doesnt like to get hit at the best of times...
Vitali's style resembled the "upright English stance", and he was damn hard to beat....

Only ever beaten on injuries and never floored... not bad really...

barry · Post by **barry** » 14 Sep 2006, 10:43

If only Vitali would not have flat out quit!

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 14 Sep 2006, 10:51

barry wrote:If only Vitali would not have flat out quit!

Good post, barry -- new, informative, and perfectly balanced.

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 14 Sep 2006, 11:12

silkov wrote:Only ever beaten on injuries...

Just like Lennox Lewis. He was also only ever beaten on injuries.

James Braddock: Under-Rated

re

ratings

Walcott disagrees

re

Re: ratings

re

eras number 1

re

re

Re: re